Well, my question ended up being superbly answered, very specifically by rq and Alexandra about how Nureyev used his art to enhance certain proportions so they would then be the ones that seem perfect, and that he felt were the most correct in terms of ballet proportion.

But now scores of new 'perfect physiques' and even 'ideal male proportions' have appeared under as many names, and so I can fully admit to always thinking Nureyev had one of the 'perfect physiques', but that this was not quite the same as 'perfect male physique proportions for ballet', about which I technically knew nothing. And yet the net result has been about the same, with the 'ideal body' and the 'perfect physique' become nearly one and the same. In that case, I ought to add Nikolaj Hubbe, who, according to Alexandra, also speaks with a great richness of images--and he certainly has a 'perfect physique'. All the other ones I named, and most likely everybody else's too, have perfect physiques--so it ends up being a lot more the 'ones you like best' than I would have thought. In short, there really is no 'golden ideal', because I am now even free to say that Peter Martins has 'the perfect physique' even if this isn't all that popular here, because, for one thing--he did have it, and it was more obviously masculine than some of the others, and that was in a literal sense the criterion of 'male proportion', while not being so obviously lush-looking as Marcelo Gomes, who is nevertheless masculine. This has turned out almost as an interesting experiment, although I certainly had no idea beforehand that there would be so many different ideas of what 'ideal' is--such that there does end up being nothing that conclusive except qualities of dynamism, energy and brilliant imagination mixed in with--perfect physiques.

Was it in Far From Denmark where Martins tells how Balanchine informed him that he was not ideally proportioned? Balanchine noted that PM's thighs were too long for his calves, by an inch. Martins said he studied his frame in the mirror and realized it was true.

Was it in Far From Denmark where Martins tells how Balanchine informed him that he was not ideally proportioned? Balanchine noted that PM's thighs were too long for his calves, by an inch. Martins said he studied his frame in the mirror and realized it was true.

Not that he looked bad, just not quite perfect.

If even so, it was definitely in Far from Denmark that Peter Martins was made to understand that he was the ideal partner for Suzanne Farrell, who may have the 'perfect female physique' to my mind, but may possibly not be of 'ideal female proportion...' , given that I am always made to think of my favourite Tintorettos, which the Baroque rode in to dispute as not occurring in nature quite frequently enough...In any case, both Suzanne and Peter tended to agree a little bit more with everything Balanchine said than some of the other more religiously individualistic ones we've been talking about today...who were glorious but had shorter tenures in some companies than others.

Perky, I think Croce was talking about the fabulous Nikolai Fadeyechev, who was certainly a big guy and danced with heroic generosity in every way -- his cabrioles hung in the air and he beat htem so slowly it was almost an assemble ouverte -- he had all the time in the world,, and when he'd finally come down he landed very softly. A VERY old-fashioned ideal, but you can see that it was an ideal. I personally adore fadeyechev. He's one of my favorite dancers, I fancy I can see something of Pavel Gerdt in him.

But now scores of new 'perfect physiques' and even 'ideal male proportions' have appeared under as many names, and so I can fully admit to always thinking Nureyev had one of the 'perfect physiques', but that this was not quite the same as 'perfect male physique proportions for ballet', about which I technically knew nothing. And yet the net result has been about the same, with the 'ideal body' and the 'perfect physique' become nearly one and the same.

I agree, papeetepatrick. As I read and think about this topic, I wonder sometimes if we aren't confusing several different sets of categories. But, everyone, keep the posts coming! We'll work it out eventually.

There are also different "ideal physiques" for different styles. The appropriate physique for a Balanchine dancer is very different (or used to be) from the ideal physique for a Petipa dancer. I think Peter Martins is rather too tall for classical ballet, but as a performer of Balanchine's ballets and a partner for Farrell, he is indeed ideal.

A simple analysis of physiques is visible in a still photo on the Ardani Associates website of the "Kings of Dance". It's from the opening stance of the performance (after the video prologue) when all four "kings" are standing side by side in backlit silhouette. (Kinda like four "Oscar" statues in a row.) An easy way to see proportions in four of the top male dancers of today. You be the judge whether it has affected the brilliance of their dancing. I think not.

I don't think anyone has stated that a less than ideal physique diminishes the brilliance of one's dancing. An easy example to cite is Baryshnikov, whose physique was not suited for very much at all in classical ballet, but of course he was one of the most brilliant dancers the world has ever known.